Second Landlord Claim Dismissed Due to Res Judicata
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's second claim for damage to fittings and loss of rent. The Tribunal applied the rule of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle, which prevent re-litigation of issues already decided.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot re-litigate issues that have already been decided in a previous hearing.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application due to the rule of res judicata and Henderson v Henderson principle.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's second claim for damage to fittings and loss of rent, applying the rule of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle, which prevent re-litigation of issues already decided.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151913 1
[2025] NZTT 5151913
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Reasons:
2. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
3. This is the second application brought by the landlord for this tenancy. The first application, NZTT 4985201, was heard on 5 November 2024. An Order was then issued for rent arrears and compensation, and the landlord’s other claims were dismissed.
4. Today the landlord is making another claim for damage to fittings that were the subject of the original hearing, and for loss of rent.
5. I note that the tenancy ended 10 August 2024, almost three months before the original hearing. This should provide ample time for the parties to finalise their claims before coming to hearing.
6. A party is required to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. This is a long-standing legal principle that is known as the rule of [NAME] v [NAME].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151913 2
7. An even older principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents two parties re- litigating a matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits.
8. These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of [NAME] and [NAME] v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph.
Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances), permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.
9. Because this application concerns a tenancy and issues that have already been traversed and decided in the Tenancy Tribunal, I am unable to hear it.
[NAME]
13 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151913 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5151913 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The principle that all issues related to a single legal proceeding should be brought forward in that proceeding was accepted.
- The principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of matters already decided, was accepted.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's attempt to re-litigate issues that were already decided in a previous hearing was rejected.
- The landlord's claim for damage to fittings that were previously adjudicated was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's second claim for damage to fittings and loss of rent.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the landlord's attempt to re-litigate issues related to damage to fittings and loss of rent, which had already been decided in a previous hearing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the landlord's claim because the rule of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle prevent re-litigation of issues already decided.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied, but the court relied on legal principles such as res judicata and Henderson v Henderson.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the landlord could not re-litigate issues that had already been decided in a previous hearing.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure all claims are brought in a single proceeding to avoid dismissal based on res judicata.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.